Um Crime de Paixão

Nikolas (Paul Bettany) is a 14th (or so) century priest with a guilty conscience. Guilty of adultery, he exiles himself to the countryside and casts his lot with a group of itinerant theatrical players lead by Martin (DaFoe). Though Nikolas has no discernible acting talent, the troupe begins to grow attached to him, especially as he develops an interest in the mystery of the disappearance and death of several young boys in a small town the players have come to visit. Nikolas exhumes the corpse, attracting the attention and ire of the local magistrate, and discovers a cover-up and conspiracy which his conscience can not allow to go unexposed. Since the courts, the local law enforcement, the church and the local nobility will not listen, Nikolas must plead his case to the citizenry. The troupe takes up the task using their well honed talents.

This is a very clever, well written, very well filmed, carefully planned piece of historical fiction. The medieval period is portrayed with far greater accuracy and sensitivity than the usual contemporary film affords, though its cleanliness is a bit absurd, the set is magnificent and reminiscent of Herzog's talents in creating a historic context. The language of the film is also as authentic as it could be without resorting to archaic tongues few would understand. The acting is exceptional, though a couple of Bettany's soliloquies were a little predictably presented (he seems to do a lot of this sort of thing) with DaFoe and Gina McKee providing especially touching and intense performances.

The acting and strong script combine to make The Reckoning as good as a character study as it is as a dramatic mystery. It is not, however, a fast paced thriller and will undoubtedly disappoint those used to the style of mystery currently in vogue - that is guns-a-blazin' sex and violence-decorated kill-fests. If you're not in the mood for a slow-moving but intense film experience, avoid The Reckoning. If you want to be immersed in a different, but very real, world, and experience a contemporary issue through the eyes of those who live in that world, see it.

Everything in the setting and art direction of this nicely done dramatic mystery is of Academy Award caliber, so why was it not nominated? It should have been.

The plot is simple but handled in a most perceptive and well-conceived manner, and makes for a riveting tale, with superb performances by nearly everyone involved. A murder mystery set in the 13th century in England, of course with the dangerous politics of aristocracy as fodder.

The fault of this film is in the portrayal of the villain, who is lacking in development and nothing more than a one-dimensional Simon Legree. One fully expects him to pull his mustache and cackle. His eventual downfall is welcome, but handled in way that just seems unrealistic for the times.

Here is a fellow who is suspected of planning a revolt against the King of England, yet he only has about 6 knights in his stable when push comes to shove? What? Then the angry villagers burn down the gigantic castle, which was the size of about the rest of the town. Right, they'd prefer to just burn it down rather than use it.

Other than that, a great film.

A gem of a film. Artistic without being pretentious, moving without being cliché. Paul Bettany is completely believable as a tormented priest, Willem Dafoe is as always intense and a joy to watch. The movie takes place in the dark ages mostly in a small outpost in the English countryside. A woman is wrongly accused of murder and a traveling troupe of actors, lead by Dafoe, enters the town and becomes involved in clearing her name of the accusation.

I was most impressed with the set they used for the village, it's incredible. The set immerses you in the desperate and dramatic feel of the film properly. The film has an authentic theatrical feel to it. More like it's being acted on stage rather than on location. I recommend this well acted tale.

This film was a total surprise for me. I went to see it without any pre conceived ideas; I had no clue what to expect. I based my decision on the the strength of the cast here assembled. It proved me right, as this is a movie that is very satisfying without being pretentious, or preachy.

It is, without a doubt, a major achievement for its director, Paul McGuigan. It probably would be intimidating to undertake a project of this magnitude and still bring together all the right elements to make this film enjoyable. The only sad part is that it seems this film is not getting its fair share the way it's being marketed, at least in this country.

Paul Bettany is amazing as the young priest who commits a terrible sin and has to leave the security of his church. He is fortunate to meet with the kind hearted Martin, and his troupe of players. William Dafoe is very good as the principal actor in this group. Brian Cox's role is brief, but he is very effective. Elvira Minguez has no dialogue at all, but her presence is crucial to the story and her Martha adds another layer to the story.

Despite the different acting styles and accents, the story keeps the viewer engrossed in the story. I do hope it will get the audience it sadly needs, for this is a much better film than the silly stuff being offered these days.

The mission of the movie seems to be to portray how things were in the middle ages, and while I think it's a pretty good and well-acted movie with a relevant story, I doubt that most of the main characters' actions and way of thinking are anywhere near historically accurate. The year is 1380. What's all this about voting?? And the priest's sense of justice seems just a wee bit too well-developed. And would the actors turn around to help a deaf and dumb condemned prisoner that they practically didn't know? Doesn't feel realistic to me. The movie seems glazed over with a lot of modern sentiment and sense of justice (and democracy!), which essentially turns it into light entertainment rather than a serious story. But at its heart it does have a message of showing how the powerful used to prey on the powerless (and, indirectly, how they still do today), and as such does contribute something to the current mass audience's understanding of history and the world.

7 out of 10.